symbolic ({| align="[[right]]" style="line-height:2.0em;text-align:right;margin-left: 10px;background-color:#fcfcfc;border:1px solid #aaa" | [[French]]: ''[[symbolique) The term ]]'symbolic' appears in adjectival form|}
in Lacan's earliest psychoanalytic writings (e.g. Lacan, 1936). In these early
works the term implies references to symbolic logic and to the equations used
in mathematical physics (EcIn [[Lacan]]ian [[psychoanalysis]], 79)the "[[symbolic]]" is one of [[three]] [[order]]s that [[structure]] [[human]] [[existence]], the [[others]] [[being]] the [[imaginary]] and the [[real]]. In 1948 symptoms are said to have a
==History==The term "[[symbolic]]" appears in adjectival [[form]] in Lacan's earliest [[psychoanalytic]] writings. The adjectival "[[symbolic]]" is often used by [[Lacan]] in a fairly conventional [[sense]], but in the 1950s he begins to use the [[word]] as a substantive, and it rapidly becomes the cornerstone of his [[theory]]: the [[subject]]'s [[relationship]] with the [[symbolic meaning]] is the heart of [[psychoanalysis]]. It now becomes one of the three [[orders]] that remain central throughout the rest of Lacan' (E, 10)s [[work]]. By 1950Of these three orders, the term has acquired anthropologicalsymbolic is the most crucial one for psychoanalysis; [[psychoanalysts]] are essentially 'practitioners of the symbolic function'.<ref>{{E}} p. 72</ref>
overtones==Structuralism==Lacan incorporates into [[psychoanalysis]] the [[linguistics]] of [[Saussure]] and the [[anthropology]] of [[Lévi-Strauss]]. [[Lacan]]'s [[concept]] of the [[symbolic|symbolic order]] owes much to the anthropological work of [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]].<ref>[[Claude Lévi-Strauss|Lévi-Strauss, Claude]]. 1949a: 203</ref> In [[particular]], [[Lacan]] takes from [[Claude Lévi-Strauss|Lévi-Strauss]] the [[idea]] that the [[social]] [[world]] is [[structured]] by certain [[law]]s which regulate kinship relations and the [[exchange]] of gifts. In his work on kinship [[Lévi-Strauss]] argues that any culture can be seen as a set of [[symbolic]] [[structure]]s such as when Lacan praises Marcel Mauss for having shown the rules governing kinship and alliance, [[language]] and [[art]]. He also demonstrates that in [[primitive]] societies the [[ritual]] exchange of gifts has an important [[role]] in the creation and perpetuation of social [[stability]]. The application of [[Saussure]]'s theory of the [[sign]] allows these structures and exchanges to be [[analyzed]] as exchanges of [[signifier]]s. The emergence of [[symbolic]] [[structure]]s is an essential feature of thehuman transition from [[nature]] to [[culture]].
structures ==Culture==Adapting [[Lévi-Strauss]]'s study of how kinship rules and exogamy govern exchanges between human groups to the field of [[psychoanalysis]], [[Lacan]] now describes the [[Oedipus complex]] as a [[process]] which imposes [[symbolic]] [[structure]]s on [[sexuality]] and allows the [[subject]] to emerge. [[Pre-oedipal|Pre-oedipal sexuality]] is likened to a [[state]] of [[nature]] and unbridled sexuality; the role of the [[Name-of society -the-Father]] is to disrupt the [[dual relation]]ship in which the [[child]] tries to fuse with the [[mother]] in an incestuous union, and to establish a legitimate line of descent ("son of...", "daughter of..."). [[Culture]] and the [[symbolic]] are thuse imposed upon [[nature]]. The [[subject]] gains access to the [[symbolic]], to a [[name]] and a lineage, but does so at the cost of a [[symbolic|symbolic castration]]. Although the exchange of [[signifier]]s in [[speech]] is an obvious example of [[symbolic|symbolic exchange]], [[Lacan]]' (Ecs [[symbolic]] is not simply synonymous with [[language]], 132)and should be [[understood]] as comprising the entire [[domain]] of [[culture]].
These different nuances ==Language==Since the most basic form of exchange is [[communication]] itself (the exchange of [[words]], the [[gift]] of [[speech]]);<ref>{{S4}} p. 189</ref> and since the [[concepts]] of [[law]] and of [[structure]] are combined into unthinkable without [[language]], the [[symbolic]] is essentially a single category [[linguistic]] [[dimension]]. Any aspect of the psychoanalytic [[experience]] which has a [[linguistic]] [[structure]] thus pertains to the [[symbolic order]]. The [[symbolic]] dimension of [[language]] is that of the [[signifier]]; a dimension in 1953 whenwhich elements have no positive [[existence]] but which are constituted purely by virtue of their mutual differences.
==Alterity==The [[symbolic]] is also the realm of radical [[alterity]] which [[Lacan begins ]] refers to as the [[Other]]. The [[unconscious]] is the [[discourse]] of this [[Other]], and thus belongs wholly to use the term '[[symbolic order]]. The [[symbolic' as a noun]] is the realm of the [[Law]] which regulates [[desire]] in the [[Oedipus complex]]. It now becomes one is the realm of [[culture]] as opposed to the [[imaginary]] [[order]] of [[nature]]. Whereas the[[imaginary]] is characterised by [[dual relation]]s, the [[symbolic]] is characterised by [[triad]]ic [[structures]], because the [[intersubjective]] relationship is always "mediated" by a [[third]] term, the [[big Other]].
three ORDERs that remain central throughout ==Death==The [[symbolic order]] is also the rest realm of Lacan's work[[death]], of [[absence]] and of [[lack]]. The [[symbolic]] is both the [[pleasure principle]] which regulates the distance from the [[Thing]], and the [[death drive]] which goes "[[pleasure principle|beyond the pleasure principle]]" by means of [[repetition]];<ref>{{S2}} p. 210</ref> in fact, "the [[death drive]] is only the mask of the [[symbolic order]]."<ref>{{S2}} p. Of these326</ref>
three orders==Autonomy==The [[symbolic order]] is completely [[autonomous]]: it is not a superstructure determined by [[biology]] or [[biology|genetics]]. It is completely [[contingent]] with respect to the [[real]]: "There is no [[biological]] [[reason]], and in particular no genetic one, to account for exogamy. In the human order we are dealing with the [[complete]] emergence of a new function, encompassing the [[whole]] order in its entirety."<ref>{{S2}} p. 29</ref> Thus while the [[symbolic ]] may seem to "spring from the real" as pre-given, this is an [[illusion]], and "one shouldn't [[think]] that [[symbols]] actually have come from the most crucial one for real."<ref>{{S2}} p. 238</ref> The totalising, all-encompassing effect of the [[symbolic order]] leads [[Lacan]] to [[speak]] of the [[symbolic]] as a [[universe]]: "In the symbolic order the [[totality]] is called a universe. The symbolic order from the first takes on its [[universal]] [[character]]. It isn't constituted bit by bit. As soon as the [[symbol]] arrives, there is a universe of symbols."<ref>{{S2}} p. 29</ref> There is therefore no question of a gradual continuous transition from the [[imaginary ]]to the [[symbolic]]; they are completely heterogeneous domains. Once the [[symbolic order]] has arisen, it creates the sense that it has always been there, since "we find it absolutely [[impossible]] to speculate on what preceded it other than by symbols."<ref>{{S2}} p. 5</ref> For this reason it is strictly [[speaking]] impossible to conceive the origin of [[language]], let alone what came before, which is why questions of [[development]] lie [[outside]] the field of [[psychoanalysis; psycho-]].
analysts are essentially ==Psychoanalysis==[[Lacan]] criticises the [[psychoanalysis]] of his day for [[forgetting]] the [[symbolic order]] and reducing everything to the [[imaginary]]. This is, for [[Lacan]], [[nothing]] less than a [[betrayal]] of [[Freud]]'s most basic insights; "Freud'practitioners s discovery is that of the field of the effects, in the nature of man, produced by his relation to the symbolic function' (order. To ignore this symbolic order is to condemn the discovery to oblivion."<ref>{{E}} p. 64</ref> [[Lacan]] argues that it is only by [[working]] in the [[symbolic order]] that the [[analyst]] can produce changes in the [[subjective]] [[position]] of the [[analysand]]; these changes will also produce [[imaginary]] effects, 72)since the [[imaginary]] is [[structure]]d by the [[symbolic]]. In
speaking of 'the symbolic function', Lacan makes it clear that his concept of
==See Also=={{See}}* [[Communication]]* [[Death drive]]* [[Imaginary]]||* [[Language]]* [[Law]]* [[Linguistics]]||* [[Name-of-the symbolic order owes much to the anthropological work of Claude LÈvi-Father]]* [[Oedipus complex]]* [[Other]]||* [[Order]]* [[Real]]* [[Signifier]]||* [[Structure]]* [[Unconscious]]{{Also}}
Strauss (from whom the phrase 'symbolic function' is taken; see LÈvi==References==<div style="font-Strauss,size:11px" class="references-small"><references/></div>
1949a{{OK}}[[Category: 203). In particular, Lacan takes from LÈvi-Strauss the idea that theSymbolic]]
social world is structured by certain laws which regulate kinship relations and the exchange of gifts (see also Mauss, 1923). The concept of the gift, and that of a circuit of exchange, are thus fundamental to Lacan's concept of the symbolic (S4, 153-4, 182). Since the most basic form of exchange is communication itself (the exchange of words, the gift of speech; S4, 189), and since the concepts of LAw and of STRUCTURE are unthinkable without LANGUAGE, the symbolic is essentially a linguistic dimension. Any aspect of the psychoanalytic experi- ence which has a linguistic structure thus pertains to the symbolic order. However, Lacan does not simply equate the symbolic order with language. On the contrary, language involves imaginary and real dimensions in addition to its symbolic dimension. The symbolic dimension of language is that of the SIGNIFIER; a dimension in which elements have no positive existence but which are constituted purely by virtue of their mutual differences. The symbolic is also the realm of radical alterity which Lacan refers to as the OTHER. The UNCONSClOUs is the discourse of this Other, and thus belongs wholly to the symbolic order. The symbolic is the realm of the Law which regulates desire in the Oedipus complex. It is the realm of culture as opposed to the imaginary order of nature. Whereas the imaginary is characterised by dual relations, the symbolic is characterised by triadic structures, because the intersubjective relationship is always 'mediated' by a third term, the big Other. The symbolic order is also the realm of DEATH, Of ABSENCE and of LACK. The symbolic is both the PLEASURE PRINCIPLE which regulates the distance from the Thing, and the DEATH DRIVE which goes 'beyond the pleasure principle' by means of repetition (S2, 210); in fact, 'the death drive is only the mask of the symbolic order' (S2, 326). The symbolic order is completely autonomous: it is not a superstructure determined by biology or genetics. It is completely contingent with respect to the real: 'There is no biological reason, and in particular no genetic one, to account for exogamy. In the human order we are dealing with the complete emergence of a new function, encompassing the whole order in its entirety' (S2, 29). Thus while the symbolic may seem to 'spring from the real' as pre- given, this is an illusion, and 'one shouldn't think that symbols actually have come from the real' (S2, 238). The totalising, all-encompassing effect of the symbolic order leads Lacan to speak of the symbolic as a universe: 'In the symbolic order the totality is called a universe. The symbolic order from the first takes on its universal character. It isn't constituted bit by bit. As soon as the symbol arrives, there is a universe of symbols' (S2, 29). There is therefore no question of a gradual continuous transition from the imaginary to the symbolic; they are completely hetero- geneous domains. Once the symbolic order has arisen, it creates the sense that it has always been there, since 'we find it absolutely impossible to speculate on what preceded it other than by symbols' (S2, 5). For this reason it is strictly speaking impossible to conceive the origin of language, let alone what came before, which is why questions of development lie outside the field of psycho- analysis. Lacan criticises the psychoanalysis of his day for forgetting the symbolic order and reducing everything to the imaginary. This is, for Lacan, nothing less than a betrayal of Freud's most basic insights; 'Freud's discovery is that of the field of the effects, in the nature of man, produced by his relation to the symbolic order. To ignore this symbolic order is condemn the discovery to oblivion' (E, 64). Lacan argues that it is only by working in the symbolic order that the analyst can produce changes in the subjective position of the analysand; these changes will also produce imaginary effects, since the imaginary is structured by the SIGNIFIER; a dimension in which elements have no positive existence but which are constituted purely by virtue of their mutual differences. The symbolic is also the realm of radical alterity which Lacan refers to as the OTHER. The UNCONSClOUs is the discourse of this Other, and thus belongs wholly to the symbolic order. The symbolic is the realm of the Law which regulates desire in the Oedipus complex. It is the realm of culture as opposed to the imaginary order of nature. Whereas the imaginary is characterised by dual relations, the symbolic is characterised by triadic structures, because the intersubjective relationship is always 'mediated' by a third term, the big Other. The symbolic order is also the realm of DEATH, Of ABSENCE and of LACK. The symbolic is both the PLEASURE PRINCIPLE which regulates the distance from the Thing, and the DEATH DRIVE which goes 'beyond the pleasure principle' by means of repetition (S2, 210); in fact, 'the death drive is only the mask of the symbolic order' (S2, 326). The symbolic order is completely autonomous: it is not a superstructure determined by biology or genetics. It is completely contingent with respect to the real: 'There is no biological reason, and in particular no genetic one, to account for exogamy. In the human order we are dealing with the complete emergence of a new function, encompassing the whole order in its entirety' (S2, 29). Thus while the symbolic may seem to 'spring from the real' as pre- given, this is an illusion, and 'one shouldn't think that symbols actually have come from the real' (S2, 238). The totalising, all-encompassing effect of the symbolic order leads Lacan to speak of the symbolic as a universe: 'In the symbolic order the totality is called a universe. The symbolic order from the first takes on its universal character. It isn't constituted bit by bit. As soon as the symbol arrives, there is a universe of symbols' (S2, 29). There is therefore no question of a gradual continuous transition from the imaginary to the symbolic; they are completely hetero- geneous domains. Once the symbolic order has arisen, it creates the sense that it has always been there, since 'we find it absolutely impossible to speculate on what preceded it other than by symbols' (S2, 5). For this reason it is strictly speaking impossible to conceive the origin of language, let alone what came before, which is why questions of development lie outside the field of psycho- analysis. Lacan criticises the psychoanalysis of his day for forgetting the symbolic order and reducing everything to the imaginary. This is, for Lacan, nothing less than a betrayal of Freud's most basic insights; 'Freud's discovery is that of the field of the effects, in the nature of man, produced by his relation to the symbolic order. To ignore this symbolic order is condemn the discovery to oblivion' (E, 64). Lacan argues that it is only by working in the symbolic order that the analyst can produce changes in the subjective position of the analysand; these changes will also produce imaginary effects, since the imaginary is structured by the == def == The social world of linguistic communication, intersubjective relations, knowledge of ideological conventions, and the acceptance of the law (also called the "big Other"). Once a child enters into language and accepts the rules and dictates of society, it is able to deal with others. The acceptance of language's rules is aligned with the Oedipus complex, according to Lacan. The symbolic is made possible because of your acceptance of the Name-of-the-Father, those laws and restrictions that control both your desire and the rules of communication. Through recognition of the Name-of-the-Father, you are able to enter into a community of others. The symbolic, through language, is "the pact which links... subjects together in one action. The human action par excellence is originally founded on the existence of the world of the symbol, namely on laws and contracts" (Freud's Papers 230). The symbolic order works in tension with the imaginary order and the Real. It is closely bound up with the superego and the phallus. See the Lacan module on the structure of the psyche. == def ==In Jacques Lacan's theory of psychic structures, '''the Symbolic''' refers to the realm of language into which the child enters under the impetus of [[the Name of the Father]]. The child's world, which has already been transformed by [[the Imaginary]] spatial identifications of the [[Mirror Stage]], now becomes bound up in [[signifying chain]]s linked to a [[master signifier]]. Some leftover of [[the Real]] remains, however, unexpressed in language, and resists integration into the Symbolic. [[Category:Lacan]][[Category:Terms]][[Category:Concepts]][[Category:Psychoanalysis]]__NOTOC__
